Canada air Waterbombers!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canada air Waterbombers!!
I am just interested to know why we don't have any CL-415 waterbombers. The last few hours i've been helping my mates from loosing there homes. I am amazed, especially after the fires we experienced in 94, that we don't have any of these aircraft. I thought we would of learnt from that!
Our business in Europe was within metres of being burnt to the ground, if it wasn't for the fine efforts of those brave pilots flying those CL-415.
What are your thoughts?
Our business in Europe was within metres of being burnt to the ground, if it wasn't for the fine efforts of those brave pilots flying those CL-415.
What are your thoughts?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Australian Politicians are way too stupid to agree to this sensible suggestion. (it's been put in the too hard basket and discussed numerous times over the years) These A/C are probably sitting on the ground during the Canadian winter in mothballs. I must admit to being surprised that our insurance companies do not charter or buy their own A/C, but then again we live in Australia the "Clever Country!" Any comments??
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Three Tors
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are incredibly impressive, however (from what I can gather from a relatives within the NSW RFS) there is a feeling that they can complicate matters by actually causing a draft when they drop water at the speeds they operate at, and actually "blow" the flames towards firefighters.
Apparently they tried them, found that they were unsuitable, and decided against them. I trully believe that if they were suitable, they would have been purchased. Don't ask us, ask Phil K. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Apparently they tried them, found that they were unsuitable, and decided against them. I trully believe that if they were suitable, they would have been purchased. Don't ask us, ask Phil K. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Bottums Up
doohan et al
About 4 years ago, NJS had some sort of agreement or agency with Bombardier. They had, I think, 2 of the water bombers over here in Aus for a summer season and demonstrated the aircraft's impressive capabilities.
To the best of my knowledge, they didn't 'get off the ground', if you'll pardon the pun, as Govts and other authorities baulked at the cost of the machine.
Said cost I'm sure pales into insignificance against the cost of the current fires burning in NSW and the ACT.
One wonders when some one in authority will look at the long term, rather than the cost for tomorrow. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
[ 26 December 2001: Message edited by: Capt Claret ]</p>
About 4 years ago, NJS had some sort of agreement or agency with Bombardier. They had, I think, 2 of the water bombers over here in Aus for a summer season and demonstrated the aircraft's impressive capabilities.
To the best of my knowledge, they didn't 'get off the ground', if you'll pardon the pun, as Govts and other authorities baulked at the cost of the machine.
Said cost I'm sure pales into insignificance against the cost of the current fires burning in NSW and the ACT.
One wonders when some one in authority will look at the long term, rather than the cost for tomorrow. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
[ 26 December 2001: Message edited by: Capt Claret ]</p>
Simply a disgrace that this country does not have such aircraft for spot-dumping on firefronts, and near homes. If any country needs these aircraft, it is Australia. Sadly, there is a complete lack in understanding of the capabilities and value of the aircraft, and governments seem more interested in compensation and any risk associated with the operations. Perhaps the government wants the insurance industry to absorb the losses rather than pay for prevention up front!
RM
RM
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Aust
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i remember ages ago mentioning the fact that these would be a great idea to one of the volunteer fire captains - he just laughed - said that they would be useless, and why an earth would we need them when we have helicopters doing a "much" better job than the planes ever could.....after all where would the planes get the water from???
It baffles me as to what his logic is, considering the majority of the austs population is coastal, with numerous inlets, lakes and harbours to provide in many cases a huge number of spots to scoop water. Aircraft like the canadair cover distance fairly rapidly allowing them to operate a fair distance from base.
As for helicopters.....they do a good job i am sure but wat good is fighting a bushfire with a little bucket........
Another thought is why not have an aerial fire fighting unit like the US have - they use a mixture of planes from P3's to old junk buckets - refilling on the ground with a large qty of fire retardant
It baffles me as to what his logic is, considering the majority of the austs population is coastal, with numerous inlets, lakes and harbours to provide in many cases a huge number of spots to scoop water. Aircraft like the canadair cover distance fairly rapidly allowing them to operate a fair distance from base.
As for helicopters.....they do a good job i am sure but wat good is fighting a bushfire with a little bucket........
Another thought is why not have an aerial fire fighting unit like the US have - they use a mixture of planes from P3's to old junk buckets - refilling on the ground with a large qty of fire retardant
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helicopters are certainly good at spot fires such as burning embers from tree trunks but doesn't compare to 3 tonne of water from the belly of an 802. Transit times are better as well up to 180kts compared to 100 kts.
PK was interviewed by an aviation magazine a number of years ago and asked about the effectiveness of fixed wing aircraft for firefighting. His response was quite negative including the comment that "fixed wing aircraft carrying water would damage the trees".
PK was interviewed by an aviation magazine a number of years ago and asked about the effectiveness of fixed wing aircraft for firefighting. His response was quite negative including the comment that "fixed wing aircraft carrying water would damage the trees".
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks everyone for your valid comments and opinions. I hope that this issue will be brought up again in parliament. Fingers crossed!
Anyway... as i mentioned in my previous post, these aircraft are unbelievable, and a joy to watch. Had the pleasure of witnessing these machines land on choppy seas, for around 20 seconds, take off again... and head for there dumping ground, and repeat the process. The end result was 100s of properties and national parks saved. The only drawback was... this was all done during the day and not night. I presume this was because Croatia consists of Mountainous and rugged regions.
Anyway... as i mentioned in my previous post, these aircraft are unbelievable, and a joy to watch. Had the pleasure of witnessing these machines land on choppy seas, for around 20 seconds, take off again... and head for there dumping ground, and repeat the process. The end result was 100s of properties and national parks saved. The only drawback was... this was all done during the day and not night. I presume this was because Croatia consists of Mountainous and rugged regions.
Grandpa Aerotart
Great piccy, bet it took up some bandwidth.
I have a mate who drives firebombers(Trackers) in Canada during each summer.
I think you'll find that one reason they are deemed 'uneconomical'is we don't have the vast forests of valuable timber that they have in North America, just ozzy scub....and houses!
Why would we need 40 odd to cover Australia? I would have thought 6 or 10 would have been sufficient. How often do you have multiple fires in more than two States?, not often.
How often do fires rage out of control in NW Australia? Every year but there is nothing out there worth saving, and most of them are started deliberately by the National Parks people.
If you based say 3 in Sydney, 3 in Melbourne and 3 in Brisbane each summer you'd have 95% of the big fires out before they'd burned an acre down, let alone a suburb! No need to purchase them either, there are dozens of firebombers sitting idle in North America during the southern summer!
Perhaps the fire fighters are scared of being made redundant!
They, in my opinion, would just about do that provided they were used as per Canadian SOPs, i.e. as soon as a little fire is reported go and bomb it out ASAP. Unlike in the Southern 50 where they wait till it's out of control then launch everything they have at it!
Of course does anybody else remember the Trackers idle at Nowra years ago before being sold at rediculously knockdown prices? Complete with a mountain of spares? Might have made a good firebombing squadron instead of ending up as a Govt embarrassment! And we already owned them outright! F**KING POLITICIANS!!!!!
Chuck.
I have a mate who drives firebombers(Trackers) in Canada during each summer.
I think you'll find that one reason they are deemed 'uneconomical'is we don't have the vast forests of valuable timber that they have in North America, just ozzy scub....and houses!
Why would we need 40 odd to cover Australia? I would have thought 6 or 10 would have been sufficient. How often do you have multiple fires in more than two States?, not often.
How often do fires rage out of control in NW Australia? Every year but there is nothing out there worth saving, and most of them are started deliberately by the National Parks people.
If you based say 3 in Sydney, 3 in Melbourne and 3 in Brisbane each summer you'd have 95% of the big fires out before they'd burned an acre down, let alone a suburb! No need to purchase them either, there are dozens of firebombers sitting idle in North America during the southern summer!
Perhaps the fire fighters are scared of being made redundant!
They, in my opinion, would just about do that provided they were used as per Canadian SOPs, i.e. as soon as a little fire is reported go and bomb it out ASAP. Unlike in the Southern 50 where they wait till it's out of control then launch everything they have at it!
Of course does anybody else remember the Trackers idle at Nowra years ago before being sold at rediculously knockdown prices? Complete with a mountain of spares? Might have made a good firebombing squadron instead of ending up as a Govt embarrassment! And we already owned them outright! F**KING POLITICIANS!!!!!
Chuck.
As the until recently missing in action Captain Claret said, there were some in the country a few years ago, I can vouch for that seeing them first hand give demos at Avalon, I forget which year.
The one thing that blew me away sbout them was the size or the scoop for the water intake - about the size of a standard business envelope, one on each side.
I see to recall the fact that they don't drop just water. they mix a chemical fire retardant with it. If it's a canopy fire, they put more in to make the water coagulate in the treetops more, but if its a ground fire, they put less in to let the water mix drop through the canopy.
Chimbu hit the nail on the head with respect to the general lack of valuable land that is usually destroyed by fires. Fires as (property) destructive as this are seen every decade or so, and in the eyes of the government, probably aren't worth the cost in the long run.
We must also remember that the Australian bush will always burn, and the more we prevent it now, the more ferocious the fire will become when it does hit.
CS
PS - Chimbu, I sould suspect that there are many people who would take umbrage at your implication that its the National Parks people who light the fires...everyone knows it's the youth of today that do it.
The one thing that blew me away sbout them was the size or the scoop for the water intake - about the size of a standard business envelope, one on each side.
I see to recall the fact that they don't drop just water. they mix a chemical fire retardant with it. If it's a canopy fire, they put more in to make the water coagulate in the treetops more, but if its a ground fire, they put less in to let the water mix drop through the canopy.
Chimbu hit the nail on the head with respect to the general lack of valuable land that is usually destroyed by fires. Fires as (property) destructive as this are seen every decade or so, and in the eyes of the government, probably aren't worth the cost in the long run.
We must also remember that the Australian bush will always burn, and the more we prevent it now, the more ferocious the fire will become when it does hit.
CS
PS - Chimbu, I sould suspect that there are many people who would take umbrage at your implication that its the National Parks people who light the fires...everyone knows it's the youth of today that do it.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: perth
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The most efficient aerial delivery of water is the
S-64F Flying Crane, field experience has
shown that a suitable water source can be
found within four kilometres of a fire,
if a turn time of six minutes is available,
this helicopter will deliver approximately
113,000 litres per hour. It has a 9000 Litre
tank and snorkel, and can refill itself in
45 seconds from a water source as shallow
as 45 centimetres.
The Victorian government have been using one
for the last few years, and I understand its
on its way to Victoria.
Studies by the US Forest Service has shown
that this is the most efficient aerial
delivery system available, and the most cost
effective.
No buckets, the tank is considered part of the
aircraft. Visit <a href="http://www.erickson-aircrane.com" target="_blank">www.erickson-aircrane.com</a>
Good Luck up north during the fires
S-64F Flying Crane, field experience has
shown that a suitable water source can be
found within four kilometres of a fire,
if a turn time of six minutes is available,
this helicopter will deliver approximately
113,000 litres per hour. It has a 9000 Litre
tank and snorkel, and can refill itself in
45 seconds from a water source as shallow
as 45 centimetres.
The Victorian government have been using one
for the last few years, and I understand its
on its way to Victoria.
Studies by the US Forest Service has shown
that this is the most efficient aerial
delivery system available, and the most cost
effective.
No buckets, the tank is considered part of the
aircraft. Visit <a href="http://www.erickson-aircrane.com" target="_blank">www.erickson-aircrane.com</a>
Good Luck up north during the fires
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: QLD, Australia
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back in the mid-late 80's the NSCA had an F27 Firebomber out in on demo. If the OZ GOV can't afford the CL415, they could have a look at the CL215, basiclly the same aircraft with pistons and older avionics.
Another option they could look at is what the NSCA did. They rotated their aircraft (Kingairs and B212/205's) with other countries. The aircraft were based down here during our summer and were than moved to Spain or Canada during the northern summer.
They could also look at using the CL215/415 not only for firefighting but search and rescue.
I say well done to all those fighting these fires, but maybe it's time to look at other options.
Another option they could look at is what the NSCA did. They rotated their aircraft (Kingairs and B212/205's) with other countries. The aircraft were based down here during our summer and were than moved to Spain or Canada during the northern summer.
They could also look at using the CL215/415 not only for firefighting but search and rescue.
I say well done to all those fighting these fires, but maybe it's time to look at other options.
I seem to recall the NJS CL215/415 proposal was deemed far too expensive at the time, with insufficient water supplies near potential fire scenes.
The Canadians are using Gruman Firecrackers (Trackers re engined with -60 series PT6's), DC6, DC7 and now older C130 (A models?) converted water bombers, which are a cheaper option. I think the Canadian Authorities allow conversion of these aircraft without an STC (Limited or Experimental category), which makes their use in Australia rather difficult from the CASA perspective.
[ 26 December 2001: Message edited by: Torres ]</p>
The Canadians are using Gruman Firecrackers (Trackers re engined with -60 series PT6's), DC6, DC7 and now older C130 (A models?) converted water bombers, which are a cheaper option. I think the Canadian Authorities allow conversion of these aircraft without an STC (Limited or Experimental category), which makes their use in Australia rather difficult from the CASA perspective.
[ 26 December 2001: Message edited by: Torres ]</p>
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: OZ
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was a very intensive campaign by a division of NJS when they brought two CL214 out from Canada for the fire season.
Along with this was a document presenting all the research into the location of suitable water supplies within a given time frame from the areas most likely in need of protection, ie the areas in and around the major cities. This included the areas burning now.
From memory, I believe that all these areas were within 10 minutes of suitable water.
Speaking at the time to the pilots and the people who were leading the push to introduce the aircraft to OZ skies, I got the impression that the people in charge of the fire services were dead against even the trials of the aircraft.
There was various reasons given about lack of control, kill firefighters on the ground with the weight of water to the type of trees we have are diffent from the trees where these aircraft are normally used.
The idea is to put out fires BEFORE they get to the stage of destroying vast areas of bush. When the smoke from the fires are first spotted, that is when these aircraft should be called in. Once the fire is past this stage, they are used to lay down retardent in front of the fire front.
As we can see, no amount of manpower or equipment can put out these fires once they get a hold.
I believe that nothing will change until there is a change in attitude at the top of the fire fighting units or a change in the attitude and education of the victims in relation to the type of service they are being given.
NJS's plan was to lease the aircraft from the fire fighting organisations in the Northern hemisphere during their winter.
If the aircraft were based in AD, they could deploy along the hot weather as it moves across the southern part of the country, or if required by the less than flexible state govts, in AD, ML and SY.
I will see if I can dig out the report and scan it into PDF. ****** the copyright if there is any. I think it should be in the public domain.
Along with this was a document presenting all the research into the location of suitable water supplies within a given time frame from the areas most likely in need of protection, ie the areas in and around the major cities. This included the areas burning now.
From memory, I believe that all these areas were within 10 minutes of suitable water.
Speaking at the time to the pilots and the people who were leading the push to introduce the aircraft to OZ skies, I got the impression that the people in charge of the fire services were dead against even the trials of the aircraft.
There was various reasons given about lack of control, kill firefighters on the ground with the weight of water to the type of trees we have are diffent from the trees where these aircraft are normally used.
The idea is to put out fires BEFORE they get to the stage of destroying vast areas of bush. When the smoke from the fires are first spotted, that is when these aircraft should be called in. Once the fire is past this stage, they are used to lay down retardent in front of the fire front.
As we can see, no amount of manpower or equipment can put out these fires once they get a hold.
I believe that nothing will change until there is a change in attitude at the top of the fire fighting units or a change in the attitude and education of the victims in relation to the type of service they are being given.
NJS's plan was to lease the aircraft from the fire fighting organisations in the Northern hemisphere during their winter.
If the aircraft were based in AD, they could deploy along the hot weather as it moves across the southern part of the country, or if required by the less than flexible state govts, in AD, ML and SY.
I will see if I can dig out the report and scan it into PDF. ****** the copyright if there is any. I think it should be in the public domain.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ignorance.....and EGO are amongst the reasons why we don't use the technology.
In Perth over the past few years the water bombers have proved time and time again how useful they are,and that's going back to land on the ground for water refill, although they have the capacity to water scoop.
I was a volunteer bush firefighter until I had well and truly had enough of the ego driven people who just love to throw their authority around at a good fire.
Prevention is still better than cure, however a a fast attack response unit both on the ground and in the air would prevent most fires from getting out of control in the first place.
So I say we should utilise the water bombers. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
In Perth over the past few years the water bombers have proved time and time again how useful they are,and that's going back to land on the ground for water refill, although they have the capacity to water scoop.
I was a volunteer bush firefighter until I had well and truly had enough of the ego driven people who just love to throw their authority around at a good fire.
Prevention is still better than cure, however a a fast attack response unit both on the ground and in the air would prevent most fires from getting out of control in the first place.
So I say we should utilise the water bombers. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Guest
Posts: n/a
It is not ignorance that this type of water bomber is not used in Australia at all.
They just aren't suited to Australian conditions. Not enough freshwater lakes is just the first problem. Slow turnaround times was the next killer. Basically effective aerial firefighting in Australia requires a constant knockdown type aerial attack. If you spend all your aerial firefighting budget on one aeroplane that has a twenty or thirty minute turn around time, your obviously being less effective putting the wet stuff on the red stuff than if you were spending your budget on multiple smaller aircraft which allow a constant attack on the fire with constant knockdown, which prevents flareup. Further, smaller aircraft are able to place their drops more accurately, and having a larger fleet of aircraft at your disposal it doesen't matter if one goes U/S.
Bigger isn't always better boys and girls. The experience of the NSW bushfire service with aerial firefighting is extensive, and their strategies for combating fires here are well planned. I know that all pilots like flying bigger aircraft, and that is the theme that I have been reading a lot here, but the fact is that greater numbers of smaller aircraft are more effective firefighting tools than one or two heavy aircraft. (can you guess, I have had a bit to do with it over the years??)
Regards,
PrUnIe
They just aren't suited to Australian conditions. Not enough freshwater lakes is just the first problem. Slow turnaround times was the next killer. Basically effective aerial firefighting in Australia requires a constant knockdown type aerial attack. If you spend all your aerial firefighting budget on one aeroplane that has a twenty or thirty minute turn around time, your obviously being less effective putting the wet stuff on the red stuff than if you were spending your budget on multiple smaller aircraft which allow a constant attack on the fire with constant knockdown, which prevents flareup. Further, smaller aircraft are able to place their drops more accurately, and having a larger fleet of aircraft at your disposal it doesen't matter if one goes U/S.
Bigger isn't always better boys and girls. The experience of the NSW bushfire service with aerial firefighting is extensive, and their strategies for combating fires here are well planned. I know that all pilots like flying bigger aircraft, and that is the theme that I have been reading a lot here, but the fact is that greater numbers of smaller aircraft are more effective firefighting tools than one or two heavy aircraft. (can you guess, I have had a bit to do with it over the years??)
Regards,
PrUnIe
I thought a few years ago the fire service were using large capacity crop spraying aircraft to dump water, but I haven't seen any on the TV news footage that has been shown?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: OZ
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am afraid I have to disagree about the availability of water for the CL SuperScoopers.
Here is a quote from the proposal put to the fire services when the two CL215 were brought to Australia for "trials"
"Canadair's Firefighting Aircraft
Q12 Could It Be Useful In Australia ?
Australian bush fire fighters will not begin to appreciate the support and increased personal safety the SuperScooper will provide until they work a fire with the planes overhead.
Aerial firefighting for bush fires has largely been confined to fixed-wing agricultural aircraft and helicopters, both of which have an important continuing role to play in the fight against bush fires. These aircraft have some very real advantages, but they also have some very real disadvantages, which include limited payload, ground-based operations and flying weather restrictions.
While the most effective way to utilize the punch of the SuperScooper is by early detection and rapid response - hitting the fire with a massive drop of Class A fire fighting foam to allow fire fighters direct access to the fire - the aircraft will continue to operate effectively when fire intensity and extreme weather have grounded all other aircraft.
The greatest fire threat facing Australia is not amongst the valuable forest plantations scattered around the States, but from the burgeoning urban / bush interface sprawl which was exposed in no uncertain terms during the NSW fires recently. Once the risk was confined to the Adelaide Hills, the Dandenong Ranges, and the Blue Mountains, but it has now become apparent that no urban bush land settlement, whether it be in outskirts of Perth or Brisbane, or in Lane Cove, is exempt from the risk of a high intensity and devastatingly fierce bush fire.
Arguments that all aircraft would be grounded during a fire of "Ash Wednesday" intensity are incorrect; extreme weather conditions and high intensity fires are certainly the order of the day, but there are many windows of opportunity during firefighting operations in extreme conditions where the sheer ruggedness of the purpose-built aerial fire fighter enables it to fly and fight. Fire fighters on the ground do not all go home just because the fire intensity is beyond 3000kW/m where it is assumed ground forces are ineffective. During the Ash Wednesday fires in South Australia in 1983, Canadair aircraft could have been flying almost continuously - after all, Resue 1, the State Rescue Helicopter, a Bell 205, flew around the Adelaide Hills throughout the worst periods.
In any event the fundamental purpose of the SuperScooper is to put out bush fires before they rage out of controL
One of the biggest criticisms of the aircraft is the supposed lack of water sources suitable for scooping. The fact is that there is more scoopable water adjacent to high risk areas (see attached maps) than the detractors would have you believe. In many, many cases, a quick survey of your fire district will indicate that scooping water is available.
The combined national firefighting forces which responded to the New South Wales fires could have been very effectively supported by Canadair aircraft. For example, the fire which almost destroyed Winmalee in the Blue Mountains could have been controlled two days before the fire reached the urban area. Scooping from the Nepean river, and with a flying distance of 23 kilometers to Mt. Wilson, 2 CL-215's could have dropped at least 188,000 liters of firefighting foam on the fire before nightfall on Thursday, leaving fire crews to trek in to the fire site the next morning to black out the fire completely. Instead, nearly three days passed, with a very risky backbum conducted, before the fire hit Winmalee with terrifying force.
To the north, in the Banyabba Nature Reserve, Bush Fire units had to drive for four hours before reaching the fire front whereas two CL-215's could have dropped a conservative 288,000 liters of fire fighting foam per day on the fire.
Firefighting in urban fringe areas and in national parks frequently means that fire fighters cannot attack the fire front with safety because it is located in dangerously inaccessible terrain. They are forced to light backburns, which are a big risk in themselves, or wait until it reaches roads and tracks, at which time the intensity is well beyond the ability of ground forces to control. The advantage of initial attack is lost because of the inability to access the fire, and fire fighters watch in frustration and growing fear as the fire approaches homes and threatens lives.
It is in these circumstances that the SuperScooper can provide its greatest support; rapid attack with huge quantities of fire suppressant long before the fire threatens lives and properties, enabling fire fighters to extinguish the fire without extreme personal risk.
Annex F gives some indication as to the issues that need to be addressed in the event that authorities wish to trial the SuperScooper in Australia."
Read it, digest it and start asking questions of your local, state and federal reps and also bring it to the attention of the the radio talkback jocks.
Here is a quote from the proposal put to the fire services when the two CL215 were brought to Australia for "trials"
"Canadair's Firefighting Aircraft
Q12 Could It Be Useful In Australia ?
Australian bush fire fighters will not begin to appreciate the support and increased personal safety the SuperScooper will provide until they work a fire with the planes overhead.
Aerial firefighting for bush fires has largely been confined to fixed-wing agricultural aircraft and helicopters, both of which have an important continuing role to play in the fight against bush fires. These aircraft have some very real advantages, but they also have some very real disadvantages, which include limited payload, ground-based operations and flying weather restrictions.
While the most effective way to utilize the punch of the SuperScooper is by early detection and rapid response - hitting the fire with a massive drop of Class A fire fighting foam to allow fire fighters direct access to the fire - the aircraft will continue to operate effectively when fire intensity and extreme weather have grounded all other aircraft.
The greatest fire threat facing Australia is not amongst the valuable forest plantations scattered around the States, but from the burgeoning urban / bush interface sprawl which was exposed in no uncertain terms during the NSW fires recently. Once the risk was confined to the Adelaide Hills, the Dandenong Ranges, and the Blue Mountains, but it has now become apparent that no urban bush land settlement, whether it be in outskirts of Perth or Brisbane, or in Lane Cove, is exempt from the risk of a high intensity and devastatingly fierce bush fire.
Arguments that all aircraft would be grounded during a fire of "Ash Wednesday" intensity are incorrect; extreme weather conditions and high intensity fires are certainly the order of the day, but there are many windows of opportunity during firefighting operations in extreme conditions where the sheer ruggedness of the purpose-built aerial fire fighter enables it to fly and fight. Fire fighters on the ground do not all go home just because the fire intensity is beyond 3000kW/m where it is assumed ground forces are ineffective. During the Ash Wednesday fires in South Australia in 1983, Canadair aircraft could have been flying almost continuously - after all, Resue 1, the State Rescue Helicopter, a Bell 205, flew around the Adelaide Hills throughout the worst periods.
In any event the fundamental purpose of the SuperScooper is to put out bush fires before they rage out of controL
One of the biggest criticisms of the aircraft is the supposed lack of water sources suitable for scooping. The fact is that there is more scoopable water adjacent to high risk areas (see attached maps) than the detractors would have you believe. In many, many cases, a quick survey of your fire district will indicate that scooping water is available.
The combined national firefighting forces which responded to the New South Wales fires could have been very effectively supported by Canadair aircraft. For example, the fire which almost destroyed Winmalee in the Blue Mountains could have been controlled two days before the fire reached the urban area. Scooping from the Nepean river, and with a flying distance of 23 kilometers to Mt. Wilson, 2 CL-215's could have dropped at least 188,000 liters of firefighting foam on the fire before nightfall on Thursday, leaving fire crews to trek in to the fire site the next morning to black out the fire completely. Instead, nearly three days passed, with a very risky backbum conducted, before the fire hit Winmalee with terrifying force.
To the north, in the Banyabba Nature Reserve, Bush Fire units had to drive for four hours before reaching the fire front whereas two CL-215's could have dropped a conservative 288,000 liters of fire fighting foam per day on the fire.
Firefighting in urban fringe areas and in national parks frequently means that fire fighters cannot attack the fire front with safety because it is located in dangerously inaccessible terrain. They are forced to light backburns, which are a big risk in themselves, or wait until it reaches roads and tracks, at which time the intensity is well beyond the ability of ground forces to control. The advantage of initial attack is lost because of the inability to access the fire, and fire fighters watch in frustration and growing fear as the fire approaches homes and threatens lives.
It is in these circumstances that the SuperScooper can provide its greatest support; rapid attack with huge quantities of fire suppressant long before the fire threatens lives and properties, enabling fire fighters to extinguish the fire without extreme personal risk.
Annex F gives some indication as to the issues that need to be addressed in the event that authorities wish to trial the SuperScooper in Australia."
Read it, digest it and start asking questions of your local, state and federal reps and also bring it to the attention of the the radio talkback jocks.